that court: e.g., Dalcor Inc. v. Unimac Group Ltd. (2017), 136 O.R.
(3d) 585,  O.J. No. 567, 2017 ONSC 945 (S.C.J.), at para. 14;
Thomas Gold Pettinghill LLP, at para. 89. To the extent a Superior Court judge could order a charge or a lien, a Court of Appeal
judge is accordingly empowered to do so the same.
 It follows that this court has jurisdiction to issue a charging order over the amounts the trial judge ordered Mr. Biadi to
pay the client under s. 34(1) of the Solicitors Act or a lien under
the court’s inherent jurisdiction. What remains to be determined
is whether this relief should be granted.
 In order to obtain a charging order or a lien on the moneys
in issue, the onus is on the solicitor to demonstrate that a charging order or lien is warranted. The decision is discretionary:
Taylor v. Taylor (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 138,  O.J. No. 2313 (C.A.),
at para. 34; Foley v. Davis,  O.J. No. 3080, 49 C.P.C. (3d) 201
(C.A.), at p. 202 C.P.C. In deciding whether or not to exercise that
discretion, courts must “balance the circumstances and equities
of each case and client”: Taylor, at para. 34.
 The test for a charging order under s. 34 is clear. To obtain
a s. 34 charging order, a solicitor must demonstrate that
( i) the fund or property is in existence at the time the order is
granted: Langston v. Landen,  O.J. No 4936, 45 E.T.R.
(3d) 153 (S.C.J.), at paras. 28-29;
( ii) the property was “recovered or preserved” through the
instrumentality of the solicitor: Kushnir v. Lowry,  O.J.
No. 4093, 126 A.C. W.S. (3d) 340 (C.A.), at para. 2;
( iii) there must be some evidence that the client cannot or will
not pay the lawyer’s fees: Kushnir, at para. 2; see, also,
Guergis v. Hamilton,  O.J. No. 3629, 2016 ONSC 4428
(S.C.J.), at para. 6; Thomas Gold Pettinghill LLP, at para. 88;
Foley, at p. 202 C.P.C.
 Charging orders exist alongside, and in addition to,
a court’s inherent jurisdiction to grant a solicitor’s lien. Although
distinct, they are two sides of the same coin, and overlap significantly in purpose and effect. As this court observed in Taylor,
at para. 28, s. 34 of the Solicitors Act is a codification of a court’s
“inherent jurisdiction in equity to declare a lien on the proceeds
of a judgment where there appears to be good reason to believe
that the solicitor would otherwise be deprived of his or her costs”.
 In our view, the conceptual differences between the two
orders, such as how and when they are acquired, do not justify
the application of different tests. The two types of charges cover
the same circumstances and have identical objectives. Regardless